A/HRC/13/33 wholesalers to reward compliance, at least during the first years of implementation, and by the provision of technical assistance to facilitate compliance with standards. Currently, a number of certified smallholders are only able to remain within the system thanks to donor support. This is not sustainable. Research in the horticultural sectors of Kenya and Zambia has shown that “the average recurrent costs of GLOBALGAP compliance typically exceed half of the margin for [smallholders]”.47 For this reason, the Ethical Trade Initiative (ETI) Smallholder Guidelines, developed in 2006, take the view that: “retailers cannot expect smallholders to bear all the burden of meeting new technical standards. [Retailers] can help smallholders by sharing the risk of transition to production processes that meet these standards. For instance, [they] can invest in technical assistance, funds or materials for smallholder production”.48 40. The agribusiness sector could take proactive steps to assist smallholders wishing to enter global supply chains. As a first step, the sector could carefully assess the impact of private standards on the right to food. This is true for the standards it has adopted in the past and for those it is planning to adopt in the future. Such assessments should be carried out with the participation of smallholders themselves, who are better placed to identify the obstacles they may be facing in seeking to comply.49 Second, the sector should recognize the limitations of and move beyond the inspection/audit approach. Indeed, this approach does not assist smallholders in overcoming compliance problems, nor does it help buyers understand the obstacles that their suppliers face. In the opinion of the Special Rapporteur, the participation of smallholders in the elaboration of, and compliance with, standards is crucial. The smallholder ambassador/Africa observer project launched by GLOBALGAP in May 2007 is welcome in this respect, because it allows for feedback to be provided to the development of standards by GLOBALGAP. 41. The agribusiness sector could do more to reform in depth its relationships with smallholders, and in particular reinforce the capacity of its suppliers to comply with social and environmental standards. The ETI Smallholder Guidelines set out a series of steps to be implemented sequentially within specified time frames. The nature and position of smallholders within the supply chain should be identified, followed by an assessment of their needs and priorities regarding not just labour issues, but also operational matters. A “development and improvement plan” should then be drawn up, the nature of which should vary according to the particular market. Lastly, there should be periodic evaluations of these plans undertaken with smallholders, in which farmers and other supply chain actors should participate. 42. The imposition of standards by agribusiness companies may also have to be challenged in a different way. Standards qualifying products relative to specific cultural/geographical regions could act as a counterweight, to encourage a re-linking of farmers to their local markets, and increase the attractiveness of these markets for producers. Regional examples, such as Cojote Rojo in Mexico or Local Food Plus in Canada, demonstrate that such labels present distinct advantages in re-embedding agriculture and combating the current dualization whereby producers either manage to join agro-export chains or are neither recognized nor sufficiently rewarded.50 The emergence of 47 48 49 50 16 Development and Cooperation (SDC), available at http://www.agrifoodstandards.net/. Ibid., “Costs and benefits of GLOBALGAP compliance for smallholders: synthesised findings”, 2008. Para. 4.5. See also the detailed recommendations in Andrew Graffham and Jerry Cooper, “Making GLOBALGAP smallholder friendly: can GLOBALGAP be made simpler and less costly without compromising integrity?”, Agrifood Standards project, IIED-NRI-DFID, July 2008. See H. Friedmann and A. McNair, “Whose rules rule? Contested projects to certify ‘local production GE.09-17776